Conservatives promise "radical" decentralisation for local government

Today sees the publication of Control Shift (now downloadable as a pdf file), the Conservative Party's long-awaited green paper on local government and local democracy. It will be launched in Coventry later by David Cameron and Caroline Spelman, the shadow secretary of state for communities, local government and the regions (although it should be noted that all the spade work on this project was done by her predecessor in that role, Eric Pickles).

David Cameron has written in this morning's Guardian about the plans, which he describes as "a fundamental shift [of power] to local people and local institutions" and a "radical decentralisation, to reach every corner of the country".

The main planks of the proposals are:

Giving more power to people over their local authorities

The 12 largest cities outside London will also be given the chance to vote for an elected mayor;

The police will be made accountable through directly elected police commissioners;

Power for people to instigate referendums on local issues;

Requiring councils to publish detailed information on expenditure by local councils – including the pay and perks of senior staff;

Repealing the "pre-determination" rules that prevent councillors from standing up for their constituents’ views on local issues.

Removing a tier of regional government and devolving powers back to local councils

Abolition of all regional planning and housing powers exercised by regional government;

Giving councils the power to establish their own local enterprise partnerships to take over the economic development functions of the Regional Development Agencies;

Scrapping the Government's new Infrastructure Planning Commission, which it intends to use to force through Heathrow expansion.

Freeing local government from Whitehall control

Ending Whitehall capping powers and instead giving local
residents the power to veto high council tax rises via local
referendums;

Ending all forced unitary amalgamations of local authorities – such as those planned in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon.

Giving councils financial rewards for house-building and facilitating new business

Local authorities will be able to benefit financially when they
deliver the housing that local people need and retain the financial
benefits arising from new business activity in their areas;

Councils will also have discretionary power to help local businesses by levying business rate discounts.

The proposals will be music to the ears of localists in the party - although some would doubtless like even more radical moves - and they certainly represent a desire on David Cameron's part to give more power to people and remove it from central government. His challenge is to deliver on these promises in government.

When Caroline Spelman was interviewed on the Today programme earlier, she said that “this is the time to trust in local democracy, trusting local people.” The interviewer suggested that Margaret Thatcher's rhetoric in opposition was not dissimilar but that her actions as Prime Minister were more about centralisation. Mrs Spelman responded by saying that in the 1980s Mrs Thatcher felt the need to clamp down on "loony left" councils, but that this was not going to be the case now as the Conservatives are such a dominant force in local government.

That was indeed a question which has arisen in the past: when people make decisions over who to elect into power locally, should central government stand by if that mayor or council makes catastrophic errors or intervene on behalf of the local people? But that question would now seem redundant, under the new powers David Cameron is proposing to give people the power to demand local referendums over unpopular decisons by local authorities.

Comments

Every time Cllr Phibbs and some of the regular posters on the Local Govenrment forum are tempted to scream for Spelman/Pickles et al to kick Councillors out and do this and that to a Conservative administration, please come back and read this.

Localism is the way forward - but the party has to preach it through what it does, not just what it says.

Now if we could just give councillors more power over things like licensing, so that they didn't have their hands tied by the fear of 'always having the decision reversed at appeal' that would be excellent!

Will wait for the detail but it seems we may have already fallen short in two fundamental areas - rebalancing the responsibility for services across central and local govt (in favour of local govt flexibility); and outlining our intentions towards the restructuring of local govt finance (in favour of greater transparency over the relationship between revenue and expenditure)

These points may come through in the actual Green Paper, but if not, we are not pushing hard enough in this area. Local govt will assume a critical importance as we look to unwind the excessive spending positions that the Labour Government has built up in the public sector. Therefore we must ensure that the local govt layer will be fit for purpose, rather than tinkering at the edges

Overall a good move. A pity that Caroline Spellman fell into the obvious trap on R4 Today over past Conservative Govt policy. R4 Today made the obvious point yet Spellman made us look like we only want to devolve power locally, when we have control of most councils.

Will wait for the detail but it seems we may have already fallen short in two fundamental areas - rebalancing the responsibility for services across central and local govt (in favour of local govt flexibility); and outlining our intentions towards the restructuring of local govt finance (in favour of greater transparency over the relationship between revenue and expenditure)

These points may come through in the actual Green Paper, but if not, we are not pushing hard enough in this area. Local govt will assume a critical importance as we look to unwind the excessive spending positions that the Labour Government has built up in the public sector. Therefore we must ensure that the local govt layer will be fit for purpose, rather than tinkering at the edges

The issue of providing local referendums is straight out of the UKIP manifesto. Typical Tory obfuscation and whitewash of the most cynical. They know that many local referendums will not be able to deal with the real issues that affect local communities as they will still be subject to EU imposed laws. For example they will not be able to hold a referendum on whether or not to use a local landfill site for their rubbish instead of paying millions for a new incinerator. The EU has said it has got to be a an incinerator. In addition the RDA's are part of EU policy signed up for by John Major as part of the Maastricht Treaty. David Cameron is totally unable to deal with this layer of "government". Remember a vote for the Tories is the same as a vote for Labour, Lib Dems and the greens as they all have the same policy. But away at monumental cost ALL of our sovreignty and lose your vote in the process.

Just one query though and that is the abolition of the new Planning Commission on infrastructue projects. Sounds OK but I live in Kent and remember the years and years of planning blight during the interminable Planning/Inquiry Process on the High Speed Rail Link. It really fouled up loads of peoples lives for years while we waited for a decision. Surely with these big national projects we do need a national body to make the decision or else the whole thing just gets jammed up and it takes years to agree the thing let alone to actually build it.Provided there is a genuine local input I think we run the danger of shooting ouselves in the foot by abolishing it. Just a thought.

First: House prices are falling as more and more lose their jobs.
Second: If there is less work about for some time, how many migrant workers are going to move on?
Third: We are only 12 years or so away from "Peak Oil". From then on the cost of fuel will rise between 8% and 13% per year.

Imported food will become more expensive and the end result is that the population level has to meet the number that can be fed on mostly locally grown produce.

As long as local government is required to go cap in hand to central government for its income (or the majority of it), power will reside firmly in the centre.<<

Fair point. Hopefully, proposals will include, or will come to include, a change in the nature of the revenue collection so that the majority goes straight to the area in which it is collected, at the expense of grants (to the same value) from the government.

>>Please can we also allow local government to determine business rates?<<

Also a really nice idea. A little competition for business would go a long way to reducing the ridiculous busines rate levels which grant businesses nothing in return.

I'd personally like to see businesses at least get a Rubbish Collection for their money, the same way private residences do. Im not talking about industrial waste or scrap metal, but a standard 'household style' single bin. Too many small firms, who pay extensive business rates, have to fork out for a bin collection privately when all they have in it is papers and a small amount of office waste that is no different to household waste (in fact, its generally a lot cleaner.)

Every time I think the Tories have finally come out with a decent set of proposals they have to spoil it with one absolutely barmy one.
Elected Mayors don't work! The only vaguely successful one is Boris and he's spending most of his time reversing the damage his predecessor did.
A large number of places that had a referendum rejected the idea, and Stoke even went back to the old 'Leader and cabinet' system because their Elected Mayor was such a catastrophic failure.
I do agree that local government is badly in need of major reform, but coming out with a nonsensical policy proposal like this, merely to grab headlines, is just asking for trouble.

The point is not to allow councils to determine business rates. The 80s showed where that leads. But to allow councils to keep business rates rather than pool them. So business friendly councils get the benefit.

Tories often sneer that UKIP has no influence but many of Mr Cameron’s ideas on local government come from the UKIP Constitutional Policy Paper whilst his ideas on placing the police under (very much needed) democratic control come from the UKIP Criminal Justice Policy Paper.

The Conservative Party still has a long way to go but, as far as I am concerned, the more they plagiarise UKIP’s polices the better.

It will be exciting and even rocky at times but localism has to be the way forward if we are to give power back to communities and start to instill responsibility back into grassroots democracy and therefore society. This is a very welcome announcement and I would hope to see further innovations in this mould across the UK.

Local democracy is a start but let's sort out where the money has gone to.

I am waiting for a politician to give the people an itemised breakdown of what the bailout funds have been used for yet it appears no one is asking for this.

How much is it, who got it, and why did they get it are clearly relevant questions with so much money involved but both the media and politicians seem not to see that the people want to know.

British taxpayers have no information on any of the money except that the banks have it, despite government has given it, and despite there's a parliamentary committee sitting on it, we still haven't a clue what it's been used for.

Why are neither the media, politicians or the financial affairs committee asking this fundamental question on behalf of the people?

Why are taxpayers not informed where their money is actually going to and who precisely is benefiting ?

Why is Gordon Brown not being held to account for every penny of our money which he has given to the banking industry and made to account to taxpayers for the billions he has used of their money?

Why in particular is David Cameron not asking this fundamental question?

We rejected an elected Mayor for Bradford in a Labour-imposed referendum. We do not want figures like Livingstone linking us with Kashmir or Gaza or other causes.

In fact most of us want Bradford Council abolished and to undo the 1972 incorporation of Urban District Councils which were far better as was the West Riding Library Service....now Bradford is simply an urban slum run by an incompetent and corrupt council

We rejected an elected Mayor for Bradford in a Labour-imposed referendum. We do not want figures like Livingstone linking us with Kashmir or Gaza or other causes.

In fact most of us want Bradford Council abolished and to undo the 1972 incorporation of Urban District Councils which were far better as was the West Riding Library Service....now Bradford is simply an urban slum run by an incompetent and corrupt council

We rejected an elected Mayor for Bradford in a Labour-imposed referendum. We do not want figures like Livingstone linking us with Kashmir or Gaza or other causes.

In fact most of us want Bradford Council abolished and to undo the 1972 incorporation of Urban District Councils which were far better as was the West Riding Library Service....now Bradford is simply an urban slum run by an incompetent and corrupt council

Certainly a move in the right direction. Good to see the reduction in quango style organisations and good to encourage local democracy.

But where is the transfer of real power from Parliament? It is a positive step to deregulate and clear away swathes of bureaucracy. It is another to transfer real power from Parliament to local democracy. What additional real financial power is being given to the local councils?

It seems to me there is a missing element here?

It would also be desirable to restrict the ridiculous earning power that some of the local bureaucrats now have but perhaps that will come out of the referendums?

"a "general power of competence" that will free them to carry out any lawful activity on behalf of their community."

As a councillor in an overwhelmingly Conservative district I find this proposal quite scary. Residents here simply assume the Conservative party has put forward good candidates and vote accordingly. The cosy selection procedures locally have resulted in a significant number of influential members who have been elected on a blue rosette but show no signs of being Conservative. Others seem to be just voting fodder. I dread to think what they could do with such wide powers and so little accountability. I hope to goodness, before introducing this, Cameron will sort out the selection procedures to make sure the candidates
a) have Conservative values, and
b) are up to the job,

Well there's a surprise. The fact is we have seen all this before, Honest food labelling, there's a new policy? Not! Decentralising powers from Government , another new policy? Not! The fact is this is all the same old same old rubbish we have come to expect from political parties in opposition, if they really were serious about decentralising power they would start by coming up with policies to make the councils self funding for the policy areas they are responsible. Is that going to happen? I don't think so. So this is all the same old same old rubbish, and really just the New Conservative party following the same well worn path New Labour took the country to get elected.

How about abolishing council tax and giving control of income tax over to local councils? They could use the money from income tax to fund themselves and local services (which would include schools, hospitals, police etc).

"Ballpark figures for the Netherlands:
Say that you have worked for at least 4 out of the last 5 years: 70% of your last salary with a maximum of some 30.000 per year. Depending on circumstances you could fall down over time to 100% or even 70% of the minimum wage, which is 1381 euro (gross!) per month".

My god, that makes the British unemployed look like scavengers from the middle ages !!

Why is this disparity so extreme and why is all the focus here on British people who are so obviously less well off?

Despite their jobs are being taken and they're out of work for no fault of their own and despite they are given less than it costs to keep a cat alive, they are made to feel like political lepers!!!

Our politicians on £66,000 per year and upwards to £137,000 a year are treating people like they are worthless.

Why is the government not being challenged to account for the money it is giving to banks!!!

Who got it?
Why did they get it?
Who benefited?

Why are these questions not being asked by the Financial Affairs Committee, the Conservative Party leader, politicians in general, the media or the unions?

Glad to see so many people spotting that the essential element of localism, funding, is being retained at the centre.

If power was really devolved locally, including revenue generation, then it would support Cameron's plan to cut the number of MP's too and show a real power transfer to a local level.

As it stands, we have some headline-grabbing elements of localism with the key strand being omitted, which masks the fact that power under Cameron will actually be concentrated even further as the centre will continue to control the purse-strings, but the number of MP's doing this will be reduced.

What possible reason can he have for keeping revenue generation central, if everything he says about trusting people locally is true?

"The 12 largest cities outside London will also be given the chance to vote for an elected mayor"

How will these mayors be elected? By the rediculous 'alternative vote' system that is used in london?

If we support directly elected mayors why do we not support a directly elected president?

"The police will be made accountable through directly elected police commissioners"

Why not sherrifs who are not policeman and who will also control prosecutions?

"Power for people to instigate referendums on local issues"

Why only local issues? I believe we should have the right to instigate referendums on almost any issue excluding defence/foreign affairs etc.

Why are we effectively keeping the 'regions'? They don't exist, if they did they would have a title to describe them and not just the vague term 'regions'. Are they states, provinces, admistrative divisions? No they are not they are nothing.

All good except the Elected Mayors idea, which we should forget. Labour pushed this purely as they saw it as giving politcal advantage, its a double edged sword as they are now finding.

I fundamentally disagree with the concentration of power in such small numbers of people. This just creates a system were it is actually easier to ignore larger number of electors. The smaller an elected person's electorate & marjority (ie a ward) the more they are encouraged to listen!

For my money we should be repairing Labour's damage by abolishing the waste of time that is the Cabinet Committee system and reintroducing a Committee based system, where more Cllrs have real power and decisions are scrutinised as they are made. Its not perfect, but its better than what we have now...

As a nod to a chief benefit of the Cabinet system I would also review the proportionality rules to give majority parties stronger representation on the committees (ie minimum of 2 votes).

Broadly supportive of these proposals. But I'm wary of what happened in the 80's and well remember the real suffering that a few mad councils caused and for that reason I'm not too sure about extending the number of elected mayors.As other posters have pointed out they have not been an unqualified success to date.
Particularly delighted that he's taking planning away from Regional government and putting in the hands of those most affected by it. Is there now any point in regional government?

Only looked at the exec summary so far, but there's some good stuff in here. Of course, lots more to do, but every journey begins with one step and all that.

I like, for instance:

- give local authorities the right to retain the financial benefits arising from new business activity in their areas (could be a useful stimulus to regeneration/renewal intiatives, as we have in Bromley Town Centre)

- let local people choose the organisational structures of their local councils ... surprised that this hasn't been highlighted more (a return to the committee system?) - then again, I guess it's pretty esoteric to most voters

- phase out ring fencing ... good, but will it include the dedicated schools grant?

- abolish the Government Office for London ... v.good. What is GOL for anyway?

One big elephant in the room, though: Local government funding. Not surprised we're only fiddling around the edges, after the trouble over the community charge (shame - the poll tax worked much better and was fairer than today's council tax). Sooner or later, though...

Here in Surrey we have a Conservative controlled county council which keeps on spending spending spending. A Chief Executive with a salary of £195,330 plus another £6,000 "to oversee service provision" whatever that is. More than the Prime Minister is paid.

Many Conservative councillors, to their shame, sit on the RAs and collect the allowances. These quangos, like a lot of others, should be killed, but I don`t think the EU would allow it.

On principle I favour decentralisation and so welcome these proposals.

"Personally I'd prefer to govern myself instead of having yet another level of politicians and beurocrats"

Great point and isn't this the problem, it will create many more petty bureaucrats and yet another layer of red tape? I would welcome these proposals more wholeheartedly if revenue generation was being transferred to the local community but of course it is not. However anything that gives local people more of a say in the governance of their area has to be an improvement, I would hope. You have to feel sorry for those people who live in labour hot spots though this will tend to increase the power of Labour at local level in such places. Adequate funding is of course the key issue here, and if national history is anything to go by this will not be forthcoming. Don't get the impression that I am totally against this announcement I am not, but as always it doesn't go far enough and will likely just increase the red tape that tends to strangle business and cultural improvement in this country.

Localism by definition creates a postcode lottery but no politician is prepared to be honest about this, and so the clumsy attempts to deliver both localism and national equality of services will always end in conflicting powers and an expensive mess.

"Ballpark figures for the Netherlands:
Say that you have worked for at least 4 out of the last 5 years: 70% of your last salary with a maximum of some 30.000 per year. Depending on circumstances you could fall down over time to 100% or even 70% of the minimum wage, which is 1381 euro (gross!) per month".

Although this may sound like a very generous package in comparison with the UK, I suspect that they have to find their rent from this sum. Our benefit rates are very poor for single people of working age who are seeking work.On the other hand those who are in need of more support IE the truly disabled, chronic sick and their carers, receive much better benefit rates. There are a number of top ups which they are entitled to. As an example DLA, 100% council tax rebate, free bus travel, free dental treatment, free school meals for their children, a top up for having a carer and so on.
Around 1 in 100 households receive benefits that amount to £20,000 or more per year. Isn't it better to prioritise those who are in real need in this way? Of course increasing JSA would put more money into the bottom of the economy, but we can only afford so much. John Majors government did a great deal for the disabled people of Britain. Labour on the other hand have reduced real benefit rates over the last five or more years. Much as it pains me to support Labour in any way what so ever, I notice that this years Income Support rise is well above inflation. Of course it would be nice to be able to pay the Unemployed a generous amount but where is this money going to come from? We are already over taxed and the nation is in debt.

Interesting how many people are making comments supporting giving more power to local councils and then calling, almost in the same breath, for more central regulation to curtail council pay. We need to accept that localism means giving local councils the power to make both good and bad decisions! Then its up to the local electorate to make their mind up...

We've had 3 unitary proposals forced on us - all of which put the historic Suffolk town of Lowestoft into Norfolk. These proposals resulted directly from Bob Blizzard, the local Labour MP for Waveney trying to create a 'safe' Labour unitary council encompassing both Great Yarmouth (Norfolk) and Lowestoft (Suffolk) - and one rather suspects he hoped the constitunecy boundary might later follow this change!. No one except the Labour Party want this. Thank goodness we now have a Conservative policy that states (page 20)

"In particular, we will stop the unitary restructuring plans for Norfolk, Suffolk
and Devon, where recent delays following legal challenges mean the process will not have reached a conclusion prior to
the next general election."

How will any local council be inovative when all decisions are to be worked withing European legislation. Sudsidarity is a wonderful word invented to appease the masses on our way to a post democratic dictatotship, oh look we can have a say. No you can't have a say as every jot and tittle of legislation eminating from Europe is closely scrutinised to ensure you don't. No loopholes for Prime Ministers wives to make a fortune from, its the European way or the highway. Pie in the sky. Just more people to be made feel important and more expensive bureaucrats to feed.

Initially, let us look at the Forward signed by David Cameron. In talking about the crisis of our broken society he cites as a fault "an imbalance of responsibility and power". In discussing how to tackle the effects of our broken society he considers one of the methods is "descentralising responsibility and power". In this same forward he insists that "I am a strong localist". and that "Localism holds the key to economic, social and political success". He also states that "Britain became great when power was distributed and not centralised".

Interesting statements indeed Mr. Cameron! If these are to be taken at face value then perhaps he would explain how these equate with our membership of the European Union? The last two quotes are particularly relevant to this question, where "localism" relates to this country viz-a-viz the EU. If the statement "I am a strong localist" were true then he would not continue his support for said membership.

Admittedly having only 'skimmed' the contents of the Green Paper, it does not seem to contain any mention of abolition of Regional Development Agencies, Government Offices of the Regions or Local Area Agreements. But then again his 'hands are tied', are they not?

The Forward, in itself, is but another example of obfuscation and a form of contempt for the electorate of this country that is constantly shown by David Cameron and the Conservative Party and which is no different to that of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

If we are going to do this we must be prepared for the law of unintended consequences. Local authorities must be free to make their mistakes... and to live with the consequences.

Where Carolne Spellman got it wrong was in her response to the "Loony left". We as a party made a fundamental error of judgement by curtailing the loony left councils. We should have allowed them to sink. If we had, I daresay that Liverpool et al would all be under Conservative control now.

"Could someone explain why no Tory Council has chosen to be governed under an Elected Mayor in the 9 years since the Local Government Act 2000?

Maybe it's because David Cameron is one million miles apart from rank and file Tories who want to retain privilege and cut taxes for the rich?"

Or maybe its because it requires a referendum on a proposal that nobody supports. There wasn't a referendum on the lisbon treaty because it would have resulted in a humiliating defeat. There similarly havent been referendums on directly elected mayors because they too would have resulted in a humiliating defeat.

• The police will be made accountable through directly elected police commissioners; - Will help reconnect the general public with the police. Confidence in the police on a local and national level has been worryingly low for too many years and some accountability of what senior members of the police are doing in our local communities is sorely needed.

• Requiring councils to publish detailed information on expenditure by local councils – including the pay and perks of senior staff; - Quite a big issue in Kingston where we have the highest council tax in London and a grotesque attitude towards out of control public spending by the ruling Lib Dems. Transparency towards the pay perks of councillors and officers would help restore faith in those make key decisions.

• Ending Whitehall capping powers and instead giving local residents the power to veto high council tax rises via local referendums; - If ONLY this was introduced in the Royal Borough of Kingston!! We would no longer have huge rates which many of our residents struggle to pay.

The Sustainable Communities Act is a smokescreen. It is a pathetic attempt by Blears and co to pretend they want to 'empower' communities and local councils but in reality Gordon Brown's control-freakery rules the roost when it comes to issues of localism.

A long way to go, yes, but a great start. Well done Spelman/Stewart Jackson and the other guys on the shadow local government team.

Was it not the Conservatives that closed County Hall in London, doing so on the basis that the peoples’ choice Ken Livingstone was persona not Grata, in its eye? Such a Mayoralty could not be compared with the Titular Mayoral circumstance of most other Cities and Towns, but all fell about then. Amongst them locally Salisbury and Lymington which towns placed ancient Charters into the hands of ‘Charter Trustees’. In Salisbury the Chairman of the District Council, now has precedence over the re-acquired Town Mayor, but in scarcely more than a Month’s time, there will be no District Council, nor any District Councillors nor any Chair Person there of, because we are to become a Unitary Authority *. There is talk of establishing a Salisbury Parish Council, which ancient circumstance is not of old England, but one which everywhere dates back only so far as my own Father’s tenth birthday.

When eventually voters returned ‘Red’ Ken to Office I suspect they did so not because they had a particular regard for him personally, or even for his policies, but may have done so on the basis that Government had treated him in a very shabby manner. Like his Policies or like them not, he did have Policies, just as had Chamberlain in Birmingham.

Mayors and Aldermen used to be as ‘Cherries atop the cake of local Councillorship’. From 1979 District Councils have been contested on a Party Political Basis, but worse still in that year, the Parish Council of ‘my’ then New Forest Village had a disturbing preponderance of Party Political Activists seeking to be elected as Parish Councillors. Does not the current lack of interest in local Governance date back to then ? Two years ago there were twenty six Parishes in the Salisbury District Area which had no election due to the insufficiency of Nominations. Two Parishes that adjoin ours, didn’t even have any Nominations, and one District Council seat had only two nominations for the two seats available. Recently a sitting, similarly unelected BNP Town Councillor in our vicinity, wrote to inquire of me, whether there was still a vacancy on our Parish’s Council. I wonder why he wanted to know that ?

It might indeed be a good thing to restore the ‘Status Quo Ante.’ Bring back the Mayor and Corporation but before doing so there is a need to amend the system. Many voters at a District Level, have not just the one vote to cast at Local Elections, but maybe two or three votes. Why should this be so when voting for the composition of but the one Council? If there are two or three Council Seats available in any Ward all that an Elector should do, is cast a single vote for the Candidate that appeals the more or most, as the case may be and as the night follows the day the second or third Councillors will be elected according to the Voters’ majority preference. Failing that if a Voter is to retain multiple votes, he or she should be allowed to cast more than just the one of those votes for any preferred candidate. I feel strongly about this issue, for way back in 1979, I stood to be an Independent District Councillor in the New Forest, but despite receiving the votes of 52% of the Electorate was not elected due to the way the system operates. Possibly though those who then used their second vote seemingly unadvisedly, did so with more purposeful intent than I give them credit for!

The French have an interesting way of Electing Mayors. A would be Mayor gets a team together and the Electorate votes not for the Individual but for the whole team. This obviates buying a ‘Pig in a Poke’.

* (This asterisk is to acknowledge that from the next election the problem will not persist in ‘our’ Unitary Authority, although it will persist elsewhere.)

Every day seemingly produces another insubstantial initiative. One is minded of a Roast Chestnut Vendor raking through the embers in a search for nuts still sufficiently attractive to sell off as the real Mc.Coy. This is no time to be rearranging those chairs on the Titanic.

"Could someone explain why no Tory Council has chosen to be governed under an Elected Mayor in the 9 years since the Local Government Act 2000?"

Well I cannot exactly explain why no, but I can tell you what happened in Swindon.Yes, there were a number of people who wanted to have an elected Mayor, (myself included) but the council said it wasn't worth the cost. To counter this the pro-mayor group persuaded the local paper to run a telephone poll on the issue.The result was very disappointing indeed, with less than one hundred people voting yes. Sadly this is an issue that seems only to appeal to those of us who could be described as activists. So that's the state of play in Swindon right now, most people don't give a dam.

If David Cameron wants to win a landslide election the he should turn this book http://stores.lulu.com/renewbritain (damn good read) in to a contract, have a copy made for each county and have his cabinet sighn it, then have it sighned by a solicitor.
then have each copy sent to each county for the public to sighn it.
if he hasn't met the target within two years then have it say in the contract that an election will be called.

balls of steal Dave, that's what's needed and a promise that you will have to keep.

I noticed it said about elected mayors for the 12 largest cities - but will this actually be for the cities themselves (ie: the City Council areas) or for the whole subregion?

The main problem in areas such as Greater Bristol is that there is no one authority for important areas such as transport, meaning that nothing gets pushed through as the councils' track record on working together is poor at best.

I am dead against the possibility of Elected Mayors. As one of you correspondents said, the only one that is half way successful is Boris in London. Forget the rest!!!!
As for referendums, too costly, and will not replace a good local Councillor keeping in touch with his constituents, and seeking their support every 4 years. The idea will almost inevitably slow down actions within the Council Chamber. If Councillors are doing their job correctly and properly representing their voters, then this is not needed.

It needs to clearly state what each of these moves is aiming to achieve, so in future as they develop they can be tested as fit-for-purpose.

Too often rules/regulations are introduced for a reason, and then lead to unexpected outcomes as those wielding power say 'its the law' - the public must be in a position to say "maybe it is the law, but that isn't what was intended, so get lost!"

Alongside elected mayors and 'cabinet' government openness must be re-established -- all the citizens protections regarding local government administration were side-stepped when cabinet local-government was established -- these protections and rights must be reasserted.

Let us see you abolish the EU's Regional Assemblies before any attempt to have elected Mayors. Prove THAT first. Secondly, if you are in Government before all 27 States ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, withdraw the Treaty and hold a referendum on it. Achieve this and then even I might begin to believe you.

Caroline Spelman told the BBC:
"Back in 1979 the whole landscape of local government was very different... That is not the situation we face today. The landscape has changed. Conservatives actually control three times as many councils as our opponents put together - and I think this is the time to actually trust in local democracy and return power to the local level."

So, now they control most of the councils, they want to devolve power. So this is all about political expediency, and nothing to do with principle.

"The 12 largest cities outside London will also be given the chance to vote for an elected mayor;"

A dredful idea which would only lead to more waste and more opportunity for selfserving politicians. In particular as almost all of the elected mayors would be Labour or LibDem.

Take a look at Doncaster to see the effect of an elected mayor in action. Continual scandal and mismanagement and a mayor who all the political parties have passed a vote of no confidence in but who wont resign.

This genuinely sounds interesting, and while I agree that at the end of the day if we want proper localism then all revenue raising has to be done and kept locally, this still sounds like several steps in the right direction. If people feel part of an empowered local community then I think you will see so many benefits(reduced crime, greater revenue, lower costs, less waste) that we will be amazed that we ever let power be so centralised. If Cameron does all of the above then he deserves to be looked back on as a truly great Prime Minister.

More monkeys.
Will spending per head of population, in England, be brought up to levels enjoyed in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and even, the other EU region, London?, unless there is some uniform level of spending the existing Ppost code lottery will get worse.
Tories already prop up the much hated RAs and RDAs.
Jobs not for the boys - yeah right!.

About time we focused on decentralization. For the last 2 decades the level of government has grown out of all proportion. Government's purpose is to protect, to influence, and to provide minimum necessaries. The larger it grows the larger it costs, the more complex it becomes, the more bureaucracy appears, and we lose sight of what is really key. Recommendations:

1. We should leave the EU - there is no value derived from it. We don't need to be part of the "union" to trade which is why we joined. Abolishing the EU completely would be of great benefit for ALL EU taxpayers.

2.The number of Westminster MPs should be reduced - I believe DC was talking of 60 less - lets make it 100. If we have a parliament in Scotland, an assembly in Wales these members don't need to be in Westminster. 2nd homes for MP's should be abolished. Even more radical - abolish Westminster. MP's should be involved in their communities - and being an MP is a full time job. Voting on key decisions should be possible using electronic voting. Would cost pennies to setup, unlike the NHS patient system which I'm sure could be built in 6 months - if only a simple model was the initial target.

3. Ensure government responsibilities do not grow out of control. Governments must focus on governance - leave the rest to business.

There is a need for speed on the part of an incoming Government to deal with the void currently evolving in Planning Policy.
The revocation of RSS's is excellent and much needed stuff.
Planning Policy Statements must be replaced by Planning Policy Guidance to return the local flexibility central dictate has stolen.
I welcome the fact the 'Green Paper' doesn't mention Structure Plans but strategic planning issues must have proper arrangements. Joint working between LPA's within a sub-regional context should be the way forward and a legal requirement on all LPA's.
Labour interference in Planning has delayed LDF's and cost local authorities dear. It is likely that many LDF's will not have gained final approval until AFTER a general election in 2010 so re-writing them to remove RSS references will only add to the time before Planning policy can be fully operative.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed in preparation for a Conservative Government - it can't be delayed until after the election.

What is in this document is very good indeed. It is what is missing which is a cause for concern.

Two minor points first. To pick up on Jack Stone, there is a lot of evidence to show that speed bumps (vertical displacement measures) do nothing for road safety but lots to damage cars and passengers. It must be wonderful for a person with a broken leg to be jolted over innumerable bumps on the way to hospital. (And isn't there a fatality on record from a displaced neck vertebra breaking on bumping over a hump?? This is not necessarily to criticise horizontal displacement (chicanes etc)

Secondly, a lot of people have missed out that there will be the opportunity to choose an elected Mayor - we're not going to force it on anyone. (If people are daft enough ...)

But it's what's missing.

Where's the pledge to abolish the Government Offices for the Regions and the regions themselves? Great news that GOL is going - what about GOSE, GOSW, - let's have them GONE. (Pun intended, all you Geordies out there)

Where's the pledge to remove the duty to support and work with undemocratic and unelected "Community Partnerships" which all too often are collections of LibDem activists trying to win through "Community Planning" what they can't win at the ballot box?

If RDAs don't cut the mustard (and they don't) why not save the money and bin them altogether?

There is so much that is good here that it's a shame to criticise, but my fear is that we'll cut 90% of the cancer out but leave the other 10% to grow quietly in the dark ...

"A Conservative government will therefore abolish regional planning, revoke all regional spatial strategies (including regional building targets), and repeal the national planning guidance that relates to regional planning."
and

"We will also enable councils to revise, in whole or in part, their existing Local Development Frameworks to take account of the abolition of regional spatial strategies. This will allow councils to protect land, such as Green Belt, which the regional spatial strategies have zoned for development."